Should the Spartan Campaign Be Rebalanced?

[Theoroshia]

I noticed this brought up in another thread, and I've found myself agreeing with the statement that the Spartan campaign is too easy. On VH/VH, the Rebels will rarely initiate attacks on you. Additionally, Thebes and Argos have no walls, allowing the Spartan player to steam roll through these cities on their first turn. Once a forge is built in Sparta, a grand total of three turns, you can simply retrain your experienced army (used to attack the Greeks) and steam roll further up the coast towards Macedonia. Anyone you face after this is easily destroyed.

What are your thoughts on making the Spartan campaign harder?

[Larkin]

RSII campaign starts in 270BC (I know it's AUC in game), correct?

So Sparta wouldn't have existed as a single entity, it was part of the Achaean League. Since the Greek Cities faction is the Aetolian League, you can sort of assume the early stages of the game is the Social War, which only ended so they could focus on Rome which had defeated Hannibal.

Had the war not ended, one league or Macedon would have emerged victorious and likely the ruler of all Greece and Macedonia.

So think of the Sparta campaign as the Achaean League campaign, with no peace treaty to worry about Rome. Then it makes sense historically.

[Euenus]

I believe it starts in 217 BC

[Crymson]

As near as I can tell, Sparta was included in RS2 as a "for fun" faction. Sparta is similarly easy to play in RTR VII. The reality is that the Spartans have strong units and start in an excellent position; they're at the end of the Greek peninsula, they're right in the middle of a lot of rich trade routes, and they've got several rich rebel cities nearby. Once they take those cities, they've got lots of money coming in, and they're still in a relatively unassailable position (the AI is very unlikely to mount large-scale naval invasions in the early game).

Of note is that (at least in my experience) Sparta almost always gets steamrolled when not a player-controlled faction.

[ur-Lord Tedric]

There have been a lot of changes, but I'm afraid that they will have to wait for v2.6 when it's ready (closer now I believe, however). To the point that one of the Testers who tried suggested it was now too hard and unplayable!

I would note that, all discussion to the contrary, that VH campaign may well be bugged and that you'll find H better - but try it and see.

I will note that building a Foundry was the first thing I did for Rome - and now you cannot (can't afford it!). You have to wait a bit.

[apple]

For a starter don't play on VH/VH. VH campaign difficulty is bugged out (CA bug that never got fixed) and thus easier than hard so play on that instead.

[ur-Lord Tedric]

For a starter don't play on VH/VH. VH campaign difficulty is bugged out (CA bug that never got fixed) and thus easier than hard so play on that instead.

Dear Apple - after all that's been posted here the last few days - can we quote you? I may just put that in my Sig if so!

[CatoTheYounger]

Dear Apple - after all that's been posted here the last few days - can we quote you? I may just put that in my Sig if so!

Dont

My take is different. Sparta SHOULD be one of the biggest challenges to win with so i hate the concept of Ballancing things. I want different challenges ffrom different nations with some of them being realisticly brutal to build an empire with is what i prefer. The whole concept of Ballancing nations takes away some of the fun for me.

You dont realy have to find a way to overcome the Challenges of massive conquest with Sparta or Syracuse because they ballanced them so they have enough money to support large armies from the start. The Treasury thing is a cheat i wish they never added. Don't ballance it just give them the challenges they would face and let us see if we are amazing enough to overcome them,

Thats me though

[Theoroshia]

I am playing on H/H. I think to balance Sparta out, maybe just reduce the amount of gold Sparta generates early on. It would stop people from just building four or five stacks and steam rolling through the peninsula.

[Petite Wolf]

It would stop people from just building four or five stacks and steam rolling through the peninsula.

This has always been my main problem with RS2. I've always had so much money early on that I would create 4-5 stacks off three or four settlements simply so my money would keep low. I don't know about late game - I've always gotten bored before then - but in the early game I've always had so much money that I can just do whatever I want (which is one reason for my always getting bored with a campaign.)

Dont

My take is different. Sparta SHOULD be one of the biggest challenges to win with so i hate the concept of Ballancing things. I want different challenges ffrom different nations with some of them being realisticly brutal to build an empire with is what i prefer. The whole concept of Ballancing nations takes away some of the fun for me.

You dont realy have to find a way to overcome the Challenges of massive conquest with Sparta or Syracuse because they ballanced them so they have enough money to support large armies from the start. The Treasury thing is a cheat i wish they never added. Don't ballance it just give them the challenges they would face and let us see if we are amazing enough to overcome them,

Thats me though

I think you may have mis-read, Cato. Tedric's post wasn't about balancing Sparta, it was about Apple's "VH/VH" comment. As for Sparta, considering your comments about wanting them to be difficult, I thought you'd want them balanced. Right now they're super easy, and the OP's original comment was about balancing them to make them harder.

[Odesos]

. I don't know about late game - I've always gotten bored before then - but in the early game I've always had so much money that I can just do whatever I want (which is one reason for my always getting bored with a campaign.)

Later the script just take everything above 200k so you have to choose-new army or good buildings everywhere

[Petite Wolf]

Later the script just take everything above 200k so you have to choose-new army or good buildings everywhere

Ah, right, I forgot about that script. I suppose that would make things more difficult the bigger you got, but I'm hoping in 2.6 they redo the economy so that such a thing is not necessary to prevent the player from getting too much money. I know the economy has been reworked. I'll be interested to see what changes are made.

[CatoTheYounger]

This has always been my main problem with RS2. I've always had so much money early on that I would create 4-5 stacks off three or four settlements simply so my money would keep low. I don't know about late game - I've always gotten bored before then - but in the early game I've always had so much money that I can just do whatever I want (which is one reason for my always getting bored with a campaign.)I think you may have mis-read, Cato. Tedric's post wasn't about balancing Sparta, it was about Apple's "VH/VH" comment. As for Sparta, considering your comments about wanting them to be difficult, I thought you'd want them balanced. Right now they're super easy, and the OP's original comment was about balancing them to make them harder.

I think you misunderstand my comment as well. They never should have been ballanced to begin with to make them equaly powerfull to other nations from turn 1. If done historicly they would have alot of hurdles to get to a point they can steam roll everybody so easy from the start. The Modders "ballanced" them from jump street to be powerfull when they shouldn't start that way. THAT is the ballancing im talking about.

[Theoroshia]

Perhaps these few steps could make the Spartan campaign harder?

1) Reduce the amount of starting units Sparta receives.

2) Reduce the amount of money Sparta makes per turn.

3) "Encourage" the rebels to the West to attack more often.

[Theoroshia]

I think you misunderstand my comment as well. They never should have been ballanced to begin with to make them equaly powerfull to other nations from turn 1. If done historicly they would have alot of hurdles to get to a point they can steam roll everybody so easy from the start. The Modders "ballanced" them from jump street to be powerfull when they shouldn't start that way. THAT is the ballancing im talking about.

Yes, I think you're misunderstanding us as well . What we're talking about is balancing them BACK towards being weaker in the early game, instead of the powerhouse they are early on.

[CatoTheYounger]

Got ya.

What i meant to say was i dont think ANY nation should be "ballanced". If there were major weaknesses for any nations they should be portrayed that way and not tinkered with to power up so they can compete easier. If a nation had serious money problems based on strategic problems with their area and too many enemies that they couldn't trade with it should be portrayed as such.

I dont like how the treasury powers up alot of nations. Sparta's treasury and maybe Syracuse too generous IMO. Erases alot of the early game challenges they should have.

Can't please everybody in every aspect of such a complex mod however. This is the best i have played along with Third Age Total War.

[ur-Lord Tedric]

......
What i meant to say was i dont think ANY nation should be "ballanced". ............

Whilst I 100% agree with your sentiment, I have to recall that this is also a 'what if' simulation/game. On that basis any faction, properly lead and with suitable and practicable victory conditions, should result in the possibility of a win.